Ex Parte ByrneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201710583983 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/583,983 02/16/2011 Gisle Byrne 43315-232461 8443 26694 7590 VENABLE LLP P.O. BOX 34385 WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998 EXAMINER SOOFI, YAZAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOMail@Venable.com cavanhouten@venable.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GISLE BYRNE Appeal 2015-002315 Application 10/583,983 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 8, 10, 12, 16—35, and 38—41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-002315 Application 10/583,983 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a control method, device, system and computer program product for robot applications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for controlling a plurality of robots carrying out an operation on one or more work objects in a common workspace, wherein instructions for a plurality of movements are recorded in a program controlling each of said robots, the method comprising: defining the plurality of movements as a plurality of tasks, controlling with a controller each of the plurality of robots dependent upon whether any other of the plurality of robots in the common workspace is proceeding as predetermined, according to a sensed or measured common reference value, checking with a processor a value for a common reference for the plurality of robots before a start of a next task, and providing with the controller a signal to the plurality of robots to stop and wait at an end of a present task if the common reference value is not within acceptable limits. REJECTIONS Claims 1—8, 10, 12, 16—28, and 30-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Otera (US 5,204,942, iss. Apr. 20, 1993). Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Otera and Lathan (US 6,895,305 B2, iss. May 17, 2005). Claims 38—41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Otera, and Clifford (US 2004/0115360 Al, pub. June 17, 2004). 2 Appeal 2015-002315 Application 10/583,983 OPINION The sole contested aspect of the anticipation rejection is that “[tjhere is nothing in Otera et al. that discloses a common reference value and controlling movement based upon whether a common reference value is within a certain limit.” Br. 14. In both the Final Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner cites, and quotes from, a passage in column 2 of Otera explaining the use of respective robot set positions Pi, P2 as a “sensed or measured” indication checked to determine whether robots Ra, Rb, operate or wait. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4; see Otera, col. 2,11. 50-67; e.g., Otera Fig. 8.1 These set positions are what the Examiner regards as “common reference value[s]” according to the claims. We are mindful that, according to the specific embodiments disclosed in Appellant’s Specification, one example of something that may be a “common reference value” is a “position of the work object.” Spec. 9:28—35. However, it is well-settled that claims are not necessarily limited to cover only the embodiments disclosed. Here Appellant chose to recite broader terminology, “a common reference value” than used in the Specification. We are not apprised of any reason why a position (i.e., either Pi or P2) measured or sensed to check for a robot’s presence at, or deviation therefrom, and provide a value that each robot must consider in determining whether to operate or wait, is not reasonably 1 It is noted that Otera does not provide an accompanying time chart for the Figure 10 embodiment cited by the Examiner similar to the time chart provided in Figure 8. Figure 8 nevertheless helps visualize the movement of the robots Ra and Rb as discussed with regard to Figure 10, with the exception that two additional robots Rc and Rd are present and Rc operates in place of Ra’s second operation in the embodiment specifically illustrated in Figure 8. 3 Appeal 2015-002315 Application 10/583,983 regarded as a “common reference value.” This is particularly true in light of the fact that Appellant does not present any arguments addressing the Examiner’s uncontroverted position on this point. See Br. 13—15. Appellant’s remaining arguments are premised only on dependency. Br. 16-18. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation